When Is It Ok To "out"?

[peekint]

OK, I'm sitting at home nursing a miserable cold, and don't have anything better to do.

I've been thoroughly enjoying the intellectual discourse we've been having in the "Cowards" thread, so I thought I'd take it a step further. I'm hoping we can conduct this rather civilly, as an Oxford-style debate, but let's see what comes up. Might be even more fun if the gloves come off! (But please, Marquess of Queensbury rules! - or should that be Queens of Marksbury?)

Here's the proposition, posters take the affirmative or negative:

PROPOSITION: The House believes that "Outing" individuals in certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but desirable

The normal course of things would be to begin by someone speaking for the affirmative. Since I drafted the proposition, I prefer to weigh in during the arguments rather than during the First Affirmative, so I'll wait to see if anyone bellies up. If not, I'll post a First Affirmative statement after the weekend.

Let's use our powers of analogy, syllogistic logic, critical thinking and Ars Rhetorica (there's no E in that first word, moderator!).

Have fun!

[Scott]

I think that outing people is simply wrong--maybe not always wrong. I just can't think of a situation where someone should be outed. Sexuality/orientation and behavior is a personal matter. It's not up to anyone else to out them.

Facing one's sexuality can be a daunting task, but it is a solitary journey and a journey of discovery. As far as I am concerned, messing with that journey is like messing with karma.

[jdinasia]

I frankly wouldn't bother to out people in almost any situation, not only gay people but str8's having affairs etc ...

UNLESS they were actively promoting something against what they were doing. ie: a closeted senator voting against gay rights or a str8 senator promoting the right-wing family values stuff politically ...

[PeaceBlondie]

I ain't goin' for no affirmative in this here debate. There are secrets about sex that need to be kept. Like the two university students in Mexico, best friends who get drunk and start telling their secrets. The title of the movie is Y Tu Mama, Tambien. The friends almost break up when one of them admits he had sex with his friend's mother! Then they each have sex with their best friend's mother's son...

I believe it is never right to keep secret what the person involved wishes to keep secret, unless they have broken some heinous criminal code that is rigidly enforced. Note that in one of our recent threads, a bisexual man wishes to keep his marriage intact.

[onni4me]

(But please, Marquess of Queensbury rules! - or should that be Queens of Marksbury?)

Here's the proposition, posters take the affirmative or negative:

PROPOSITION: The House believes that "Outing" individuals in certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but desirable

Referring to Marquess...er...he was sort of hitting Oscar Wilde under the belt JUST BECAUSE he was involved with his son. No rules there!

Second, I would very much like to know what OP suggests to be "certain circumstances" so I could have idea what good - if nothing - this would do and on what grounds. There normally is more than meets the eye in human condition.

[Ijustwannateach]

Maybe... if my best female friend were about to marry someone that I knew from long time personal experience was completely, absolutely, gay and for some reason the two of them hadn't figured out each other yet... no, no, that's just too silly to happen.

I agree that those who make political issues out of personal ones- and are hypocrites to boot- deserve to be outed.

Nothing else cut and dried that I can really think of.

"S"

[elkangorito]

Somebody: "She's a witch! She's a witch!

Everybody else: "She must be bad...drown her!"

Somebody: "He's a Pagan! He's a Pagan!"

Everybody else: "He must be bad...stone him."

Somebody: "He's a Muslim! He's a Muslim!"

Everybody else: "He must be bad...let's lock him up!"

Somebody: "He's gay & she's a lesbian!"

Everybody else: <fill in the blank>

Besides all the people who do not hate others because of sexual preference, there are many who do.

If a minority group is deemed to be on the "wrong side of the fence" for whatever reason, they are doomed to suffer in some way whether they interfere with the lives of others or not.

"Outing" someone is all about "point scoring" or revenge. It does not help anyone. It is dispicable.

[peekint]

Sorry I've been delayed on my FA argument. I've got a cold, I had to go upcountry, the internet is spotty up here at best (yes, I know, and the dog ate my homework paper...) Thank you all for commenting on the original proposition.

I'm a little disappointed (but not surprised) to see that mosts of the posts were merely opinions and judgments, not assertions and their supporting arguments. Sort of sounds like a Gay version of Fox News. "Despicable!" "Wrong!" (punctuation and spelling corrections are mine)

However, there was one poster that touched on an important point for any debate. Poster asked about definitions ... Touche! A key job of First Affirmative will be to define terms. (Also, points scored for knowing the Marquess of Queensbury's connection to Gay people. I was wondering if anyone would catch that.)

I'm sorry, it's late. I'll spend tomorrow writing my FA argument off-line then upload tomorrow night. I just wanted to drop the tidbit that, from the comments already made, the debate has been decided; but probably NOT in the directly you think. On the other hand, if there are other clear thinkers out there like the Marquess poster, we may be in for a lot of intellectual fun!

(Though I know from another thread the crowds can get personally nasty quite fast!)

[BarryM]

What's "out" mean? Just because someone may have smoke a bit of willy does that have to define them as an individual? Why do people get so worked up about this?

[twschw]

Sorry peekint, I wasn't aware this was the Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society. I think most posters here are regular folks and enjoy ranting and raving. Have fun!

[peekint]

Sorry peekint, I wasn't aware this was the Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society. I think most posters here are regular folks and enjoy ranting and raving. Have fun!

Oops, it appears someone may have missed reading the original post? Actually the OP cites Oxford, not Harvard.

Rants and raves are great - have a look at the "cowards" topic. I was hoping to start a thread where there might actually be something more than drama diva posts.

[twschw]

I stand corrected.

[PeaceBlondie]

I would love to see a formal debate online, but the medium of an online forum does not lend itself to that. I was on a high school "Forensics Group" in high school, around 1884, when forensics referred to debate and public speaking. I was not on the debate team, and have yet to find a forum where even half the posters know the rules or follow them.

Drama is much more dramatic.

[twschw]

I would love to see a formal debate online, but the medium of an online forum does not lend itself to that. I was on a high school "Forensics Group" in high school, around 1884, when forensics referred to debate and public speaking. I was not on the debate team, and have yet to find a forum where even half the posters know the rules or follow them.

Drama is much more dramatic.

...and entertaining.

[onni4me]

I frankly wouldn't bother to out people in almost any situation, not only gay people but str8's having affairs etc ...

UNLESS they were actively promoting something against what they were doing. ie: a closeted senator voting against gay rights or a str8 senator promoting the right-wing family values stuff politically ...

Hmm...I know a guy that married with a very influential lady from political circles. Knowing that he was gay and knowing him for years we as his friends and colleagues were quite surprised to say the least. Unfortunately - or despite him being gay - they both are very right wing. A closeted gay that is against gay marriage etc. So sad. Or should I say closeted since so many know the truth?

What I can't understand are this kind of fake marriages with opinions reaching so far from their own living and choices. Another factor is that despite all his efforts he is regarded as someone lost his credibility more than in just gay circles.

BTW, if someone suggests that he changed from men to ladies...that didn't happen. Still flinging around gay pubs and discos hunting young (sic!) males. Amazingly, (maybe due to being someone in right places) he gets enough attention from youngsters.

Referring to quote above...

I don't know what effect - if any - it would do to blow a whistle on the guy. Everybody that matter already knows! Maybe in a circumstance that he would openly make hate speech against gay, I would surface to offend. But he is far too clever to say anything that could harm him. A typical politician! Fake. Liar. And probably unhappy in his personal life. Serves him right!

I don't know if this serves the conversation or not, but I would like to point out that even 'outing' someone doesn't necessarily do any good. In some countries, like mine, being gay is not that difficult - at least in the big cities. Opinions are generally quite well tolerated. And what comes to sex it is considered a private matter unless involving minors or being unfaitfull in public office.

Don't actually know if "outing" is a good idea to any extent.

[Scott]

I agree with Jd. I don't think there is anything in outing people who are in an official position and that position conflicts with how they vote or conduct affairs that contradicts what and who they are. And then I only agree with outing them if it is a choice they can make, as opposed to a policy of an organization they may be a part of. For example, if you are in the Military and the policy is "don't ask, don't tell", someone may be against the policy, but must abide by it anyway.

The Larry Craigs of the world and the Florida guy deserve to be outed, however. They deserve it not because of their sexuality, but because they are liars--and I am sure on more than just one front.

[Jimjim]

I think outing is akin to saying, "Hey, see that girl over there? She's a real slut. She gave five of my friends blow jobs." Or, "See that guy and girl? They act like they're acquaintances but they've been doing each other in secret for three months." Basically, it's telling a sexual rumor, in my opinion. Very seldom could it be looked on as a good thing to do except that people like to tell and receive gossip.

[paulfromphuket]

To my mind encouraging outing of gay people would be taking us back to the days when homosexuality was illegal.

Its like ,we all I hope ,would expose a pedophile or a rapist but what business is it of anyone to reveal the sexual preferences of people whom for what ever reason choose to live a legal discreet life.

Is it warn people to lock up your children ,don't shake his hand, be careful don't go in to the loo in the pub when he/shes there,i wouldn't give him a job etc.

Or is it to create an emotional nightmare for someone not ready to be open.

What about outing all those people whom have sexual deviancies, heh did you know they do 4 somes,rubber, whips,orgies, likes to dress as a baby and piss himself, does a max Mosley.

Unless its a prominent anti gay activist its just not acceptable.

[Ijustwannateach]

I would love to see a formal debate online, but the medium of an online forum does not lend itself to that. I was on a high school "Forensics Group" in high school, around 1884, when forensics referred to debate and public speaking. I was not on the debate team, and have yet to find a forum where even half the posters know the rules or follow them.

Drama is much more dramatic.

...and entertaining.

...always fun to watch a drama, even if the dramaturge is a master debater...

[peekint]

( Sorry for the delay again, I kept getting "IPS Driver Error" when trying to access Thaivisa.com!)

"Outing" as a verb was first used by Time magazine in a 1990 article. The meaning has evolved a bit since that original use, and for our purposes, we can define it as:

OUTING: the deliberate identification as a homosexual or as a person who engages in homosexual activity, of an individual who has not publicly admitted to homosexual behaviour or tendencies.

At first, Outing was a way to defame people. The threat of Outing was often used as blackmail, particularly in the UK before 1965.

Beginning in the 1990s, however, Outing became a tool used to advance the cause of Gay civil rights. The AIDS crisis Outed a number of well know Hollywood figures in the 1980s, from Liberace to Rock Hudson, and the positive effect that public identification had on society's view of Gay people was clear.

Gay activists in the USA began outing two sorts of public figures: celebrities and politicians.

The thinking behind outing these types of individuals was that, by engaging in homosexual activity and acting out heterosexual lifestyles, these people indirectly (in the case of actors and actresses) or directly (in the case of politicians) acted to prolong the perception of homosexuality as bad, immoral, shameful, illegal, or just rare.

In 1994, a Gay group in the UK Outed 10 Anglican Bishops who had spoken forcefully against homosexuality, adding a third catagory to the list of potential targets for outing.

Considering only these three targets, then, we can create a justification for Outing someone as follows:

1. Media Personalities

By concealing their Gay identities and taking on false heterosexual ones, Media Personalities perpetuate the isolation and oppression of other Gay people. This isolation is particularly acute for Gay teenagers, who lack role models and "heroes" to help build a positive identity. Indeed, it can be argued that the high rate of teen suicide is a direct result of Gay teens' isolation from positive role models.

2. Politicians and Clerics

By concealing their homosexual activities while concurrently acting to restrict or impair the legal rights of Gay people, Politicians and Clerics do harm to a large number of people. The rights and well being of those harmed outweighs the Outed individuals' right to privacy since that privacy is used as a scrim from which to harm others.

Both these justifications stem from the utilitarian philosoply of "Greater Good".

Utilitarians would ask, does the privacy of concealed acts of an individual outweigh the social good that revealing those acts would represent?

Society has typically sided on the primacy of private acts only when those acts are "victimless".

That is, the view of society at large is that the Greater Good consists in protecting innocent and uninvolved members of society from harm. Society finds it desirable to protect the innocent, and the Law can be very intrusive in such cases. The courts can reach into the most private heart of families in such cases. A small suspicion of child abuse, neglect or incest by a disinterested bystander is all it takes for Child Protective Services to do a complete review of a family's most private functioning, for example.

For Celebreties, Politicans, and Clerics, we've identified victims beyond the scope of the individual's private acts. Because they cause harm, the actions the Outed individuals take in their life outside the acts they wish to conceal make otherwise "secret" acts subject to public scrutiny -- whether they like it or not.

There is precedence in law for reasoning that an individual's course of action aside from an indiviual private act can cause that act to lose its veil of privacy. An example is that politicians are required to make public personal finances which, for ordinary citizens, are considered private.

To summarize then, the

PROPOSITION: The House believes that "Outing" individuals in certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but desirable

is supported by

(1) the utilitarian concept of Greater Good, which has precedence in both law and society

(2) the legal principle that private actions can become of public interest based on ancillary actions of the individual.

Indeed, in order to disagree with the House, Negative must argue the following appositive:

There are no situations in which it is acceptable or desirable to Out someone.

A daunting task for Negative, indeed.

[peekint]

I would love to see a formal debate online, but the medium of an online forum does not lend itself to that. I was on a high school "Forensics Group" in high school, around 1884, when forensics referred to debate and public speaking. I was not on the debate team, and have yet to find a forum where even half the posters know the rules or follow them.

Drama is much more dramatic.

Yeah, of course no one is going to follow the rules, but I do want to see who out there are the thinkers. So far, in the midst of all the drivel, there have been a few real gems come out.

Reading the forum sometimes is like listening to a bad psychotherapy group where everyone wants to "feel" and no one wants to "think". I guess that's the way most people vote, too, given the results in California.

I'm all for feeling, but, you know, if we just run our lives on feeling and don't think, then it's not much of a life. Wouldn't be for me.

Or maybe I'm wrong? My dog lives HER life that way, and she seems quite satisfied (quite satisfied now that she's spayed).

Hmm, that gets me thinking ...

[Scott]

How is 'outing' the clergy acceptable? How is their sexuality capable of doing harm to others? Unless they are actively denouncing gays etc., I don't see their sexuality as being an issue.

I think people need to be very careful about condoning 'outing' if a person is likely to lose their job as a result--and I don't mean politicians.

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, in setting up your 'case' to be the one in which exceptions are acceptable, you have certainly given yourself the easy job.

As an philosophical side, utilitarianism is by no means objective or uncontroversial as a justification- how far out in the chain of consequences do you choose to go in order to decide if what happens really IS good for the greatest number of persons (and how do you prove that your predictions are sound?) For example, what if outing gays results in an eventual international backlash- well, maybe it's bad- but what if that backlash ultimately leads to worldwide changes in consciousness allowing gays a long window of freedom- well, maybe it's good- but what if that window of freedom leads us to complacency which then puts us into even greater danger.... and so on, and so on.

I don't feel like defending the straw man you've set up, either.

[jdinasia]

zzzzzzzzzz

If you actually know someone worth outing and are willing to live with the consequences of your decision to out someone, feel free.

But why stop there? You must certainly know someone cheating on a lover etc that thinks they are in a monogamous relationship ... chime in on that too! Local police taking bribes? Go for it .... etc etc etc.

[paulfromphuket]

Beginning in the 90s, however, Outing became a tool used to advance the cause of Gay civil rights. The AIDS crisis Outed a number of well know Hollywood figures in the 90s, from Liberace to Rock Hudson, and the positive effect that public identification had on society's view of Gay people was clear.

Don't think so peekint.

I would think it made a good many people hide even deeper and suppress their only chance of happiness at the time.

[elkangorito]

Yeah, of course no one is going to follow the rules, but I do want to see who out there are the thinkers. So far, in the midst of all the drivel, there have been a few real gems come out.

Reading the forum sometimes is like listening to a bad psychotherapy group where everyone wants to "feel" and no one wants to "think". I guess that's the way most people vote, too, given the results in California.

I'm all for feeling, but, you know, if we just run our lives on feeling and don't think, then it's not much of a life. Wouldn't be for me.

Or maybe I'm wrong? My dog lives HER life that way, and she seems quite satisfied (quite satisfied now that she's spayed).

Hmm, that gets me thinking ...

Looks like we our own Dr Phil

I guess we can all "line up" & be "evaluated"...for free, of course.

[endure]

I'm all for feeling, but, you know, if we just run our lives on feeling and don't think, then it's not much of a life. Wouldn't be for me.

In that case I'm curious to know why you live in a country where 'think too mut' is the crime of the century?

[Eman]

zzzzzzzzzz

If you actually know someone worth outing and are willing to live with the consequences of your decision to out someone, feel free.

But why stop there? You must certainly know someone cheating on a lover etc that thinks they are in a monogamous relationship ... chime in on that too! Local police taking bribes? Go for it .... etc etc etc.

Let he who is without sin cast the first out

[Swanky]

Fascinating, I'm outta here.

[PeaceBlondie]

NO discussion of prostitution on Thai Visa. NONE.